Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board upholds most hearing‑officer rulings, remands narrow amenities question after tenant testimony
Summary
The Rent Control Board denied a late appeal, reversed a $20 flooring decrease, and affirmed construction‑impact decreases while remanding the question of whether certain amenities (gym, grill, business center) were base amenities; tenants urged the board to preserve awards and producers noted lengthy hearings.
At its June 11 meeting the Santa Monica Rent Control Board resolved several appeals, denying one untimely petition, adjusting another award for flooring, and affirming long contested construction‑impact decreases while remanding a narrow question about whether certain amenities qualified as "base amenities" at tenants’ move‑in.
Staff recommended denying Mariam Rahbar’s appeal (KSP2024‑0000337) as untimely because it was filed more than two months after the decision and did not demonstrate good cause; the board voted to deny the appeal (roll call unanimous). In the case of Heather Kamala (P2025‑05252), the hearing officer had awarded $150 in decreases; staff recommended reversing the $20 flooring decrease on evidentiary grounds while leaving the remainder intact. Kamala, the tenant, asked the board to retain the flooring repair requirement, describing repeated water intrusion and concerns about moisture and mold in her daughter’s room. The board voted to reverse the $20 flooring decrease and adopt staff’s modified findings (motion carried 5–0).
The board also reviewed construction‑impact appeals filed by tenants Scott Shent and Roxan Seaman (P2023‑06282 & P2023‑06283). Staff recommended affirming awards totaling $12,147 to Mr. Shent and $21,680 to Ms. Seaman for noise, dust, displacement and other impacts, but asked the board to remand the limited question of whether the gym, barbecue grill and business center were base amenities at move‑in because the hearing officer’s decision did not make specific findings on that point. Tenants emphasized documentary evidence and five‑day hearings; Shent said the appeal would reopen a fully litigated case, and Seaman presented brochures and historical materials she said proved the amenities existed. The board voted to affirm the decisions except to remand the base‑amenity question to the hearings department for limited further consideration (motion carried 4–1 on an attempted substitute; the remand motion passed on roll call as the prevailing action). Vice Chair Ambry voted against remand and favored accepting the hearing officer’s decision as final.
What happens next: The remanded issue will return to the hearings department for the strictly limited purpose of determining whether the disputed amenities were present at move‑in and thus eligible as base amenities; the remainder of the awarded decreases stands unless overturned in subsequent proceedings or judicial review.
